Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma in order to demonstrate that daughters can not be deprived of their

respondent no-2/ Smt. Lachia daughter of Chanai claiming co-tenurial right in the disputed khata. The aforementioned objections were registered as case nos-2673 & 2674 before consolidation officer, Chauri Chaura, Gorakhpur. Four Issues were framed before consolidation officer and parties had adduced evidence in support of their cases. Consolidation officer vide order dated 31.8.1995 rejected the objection of respondent-no-2 & partitioned the share of recorded tenure holders. Respondent No-2 challenged the order of Consolidation officer dated 31.8.1995 by way of appeal under section- 11(1) of U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as appeal no-2700 before settlement officer of consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was dismissed vide order dated

22.7. 2002. Respondent No-2 filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation , which was registered as revision No.179 The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 13.08.2008 setting aside the order dated 31.08.1995 and 22.07.2002 as well as declared the respondent no.2 as Co-tennure holder of 1/3 share in Khata No.472 and 1/4 share in Khata No.536. Hence this writ petition for following relief: "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation Revision No.179 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petiton)

2. Issue a writ/ writs, order or direction and/ or to pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

3. award costs of the petition to the petitioner."

3. This Court admitted the writ-petition on 23.10.2008 and stayed the operation of the impugned revisional order passed by respondent no-1.

4. In pursuance of the order 23.10.2008 the parties have exchanged their pleadings.

5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that consolidation officer on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties has held that respondent no-2 can not be given right of Co-tenure holder in respect to disputed Khata. He further submitted that finding of fact has been recorded by Consolidation officer to the effect that Chanai had expired in the lifetime of Bhaggan and as such Bhaggan and the legal heirs of Bhaggan will be entitled to be recorded in respect to the share of Chanai according to the provisions contained under Section-171/172 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that appellate Court has rightly dismissed the title appeal filed by respondent no-2 maintaining the finding of fact recorded by consolidation officer. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded his revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the orders of consolidation officer & Settlement Officer of Consolidation on the basis of additional evidence in revision. He Submitted that revisional Court can not enter into finding of fact recorded by consolidation officer in accordance with law as such impugned revisional order should be set aside and the order passed by Consolidation Officer should be affirmed.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no-2 submitted that respondent no-2 is the daughter of Chanai as such respondent no-2 is entitled to be recorded as Co-tenure horder of disputed Khata. He submitted that Consolidation Officer & Settlement Officer of Consolidation have not decided the title dispute on the basis of evidence on record as such, Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section-48 Explanation 3 of U.P.C.H. Act which requires no interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India. He submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded finding of fact that Bhaggan died prior to Chanai and Lachia is the legal heir of Chanai as such Lachia is entitled to be recorded as co- tenure holder over the Khata in dispute which require no interference by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. He placed reliance upon Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Count reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma in order to demonstrate that daughters can not be deprived of their rights in view of the provision contained under Section-6 of Hindu Marriage Act. He further placed reliance upon the judgement reported in 1996 RJ 423 Lal Singh versus Ram Singh and others in order to demonstrate that right of unmarried daughter cannot be ignored.

7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the the record.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that title objection under section- 9A (2) of U.P.CH. Act filed by respondent No-2/ Lachia for co-tenurial right has been rejected by Consolidation Officer which has been maintained in appeal. There is also no dispute about the fact that in revision under section- 48 of U.P.C.H.Act respondent no-2 has been ordered to be recorded as co-tenure holder in the Khata in dispute. (9) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter the family pedigree of the parties according to the petitioners and respondent no.2 will be relevant for perusal which are as under:- Family pedigree according to petitioner- Gaya __________________|________________ | | | Laggan Bhaggan Chanai | Thakur Family Pedigree according to respondent No-2. Gaya _________________|____________________ | | | | Laggan Bhaggan Ganpat Chanai | | | | Thakur ____|_____ Parsan Smt. Lachia | | Bhola Fakir

10. The issues framed before the consolidation officer for adjudication of title dispute will be relevant for perusal which are as under: " ववद कक ननसतवरण हकतत ननमनवननकत ववद नबनदत बनवयव गयव हह ।

2. चनई कक ववररस शशमतश लनछयव दकवश उनकक हक व नहससव पर बततर हहई ववररस हह । चनई कक ममतयत कक समय लनछयव कक शवदश हह गई थश और उनकक सगक भवई भगन जजनदव थक।

3. चनई कक ववररस चततरश हह ।

4. पकह कव अनश कयव हह ।"

11. Consolidation Officer while deciding the dispute under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of the issues framed as quoted above has held that respondent No.2-Smt. Lachia will not entitled to be recorded in place of Chanai as after marriage the claim of respondent No.2-Smt. Lachia cannot be accepted. The order of Consolidation Officer was maintained in appeal. Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision filed by respondent No.2-Smt. Lachia has held that in presence of respondent No.2, who is daughter of deceased tenure holder Chanai, the claim of petitioner/Chaturi son of Bhaggan cannot be accepted. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also followed the procedure which has not been prescribed for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act by sending his representative in the village in order to enquire as to whether respondent No.2-Lachia is legal heir of deceased-Chanai. The procedure adopted by Deputy Director of Consolidation by sending the representative in the village cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is correct that Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken into consideration the other aspect of the matter including the evidence adduced before the Consolidation Officer, but there is no proper consideration as to whether the respondent No.2-Lachia was unmarried at the time of death of the deceased Chanai or the marriage of respondent No.2-Smt. Lachia has taken placed in the life time of his father Chanai.

12. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, a fresh consideration is required by Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 Explnation-3 of U.P.C.H. Act.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 13.08.2008 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation Gorakhpur is liable to be set aside the same and is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed in part and matter is remitted before respondent No.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur to restore the revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act on its original number and decide the same afresh in the light of the observation made in the copy of the judgment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order

14. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 PS* PRITI SHARMA PRITI SHARMA PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

respondent no-2/ Smt. Lachia daughter of Chanai claiming co-tenurial right in the disputed khata. The aforementioned objections were registered as case nos-2673 & 2674 before consolidation officer, Chauri Chaura, Gorakhpur. Four Issues were framed before consolidation officer and parties had adduced evidence in support of their cases. Consolidation officer vide order dated 31.8.1995 rejected the objection of respondent-no-2 & partitioned the share of recorded tenure holders. Respondent No-2 challenged the order of Consolidation officer dated 31.8.1995 by way of appeal under section- 11(1) of U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as appeal no-2700 before settlement officer of consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was dismissed vide order dated

22.7. 2002. Respondent No-2 filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation , which was registered as revision No.179 The aforementioned revision was heard and allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 13.08.2008 setting aside the order dated 31.08.1995 and 22.07.2002 as well as declared the respondent no.2 as Co-tennure holder of 1/3 share in Khata No.472 and 1/4 share in Khata No.536. Hence this writ petition for following relief: "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation Revision No.179 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petiton)

2. Issue a writ/ writs, order or direction and/ or to pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

3. award costs of the petition to the petitioner."

3. This Court admitted the writ-petition on 23.10.2008 and stayed the operation of the impugned revisional order passed by respondent no-1.

4. In pursuance of the order 23.10.2008 the parties have exchanged their pleadings.

5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that consolidation officer on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties has held that respondent no-2 can not be given right of Co-tenure holder in respect to disputed Khata. He further submitted that finding of fact has been recorded by Consolidation officer to the effect that Chanai had expired in the lifetime of Bhaggan and as such Bhaggan and the legal heirs of Bhaggan will be entitled to be recorded in respect to the share of Chanai according to the provisions contained under Section-171/172 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He further submitted that appellate Court has rightly dismissed the title appeal filed by respondent no-2 maintaining the finding of fact recorded by consolidation officer. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded his revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the orders of consolidation officer & Settlement Officer of Consolidation on the basis of additional evidence in revision. He Submitted that revisional Court can not enter into finding of fact recorded by consolidation officer in accordance with law as such impugned revisional order should be set aside and the order passed by Consolidation Officer should be affirmed.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no-2 submitted that respondent no-2 is the daughter of Chanai as such respondent no-2 is entitled to be recorded as Co-tenure horder of disputed Khata. He submitted that Consolidation Officer & Settlement Officer of Consolidation have not decided the title dispute on the basis of evidence on record as such, Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section-48 Explanation 3 of U.P.C.H. Act which requires no interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India. He submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded finding of fact that Bhaggan died prior to Chanai and Lachia is the legal heir of Chanai as such Lachia is entitled to be recorded as co- tenure holder over the Khata in dispute which require no interference by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. He placed reliance upon Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Count reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 Vineeta Sharma Versus Rakesh Sharma in order to demonstrate that daughters can not be deprived of their rights in view of the provision contained under Section-6 of Hindu Marriage Act. He further placed reliance upon the judgement reported in 1996 RJ 423 Lal Singh versus Ram Singh and others in order to demonstrate that right of unmarried daughter cannot be ignored.

7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the the record.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that title objection under section- 9A (2) of U.P.CH. Act filed by respondent No-2/ Lachia for co-tenurial right has been rejected by Consolidation Officer which has been maintained in appeal. There is also no dispute about the fact that in revision under section- 48 of U.P.C.H.Act respondent no-2 has been ordered to be recorded as co-tenure holder in the Khata in dispute. (9) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter the family pedigree of the parties according to the petitioners and respondent no.2 will be relevant for perusal which are as under:- Family pedigree according to petitioner- Gaya __________________|________________ | | | Laggan Bhaggan Chanai | Thakur Family Pedigree according to respondent No-2. Gaya _________________|____________________ | | | | Laggan Bhaggan Ganpat Chanai | | | | Thakur ____|_____ Parsan Smt. Lachia | | Bhola Fakir

10. The issues framed before the consolidation officer for adjudication of title dispute will be relevant for perusal which are as under: " ववद कक ननसतवरण हकतत ननमनवननकत ववद नबनदत बनवयव गयव हह ।

2. चनई कक ववररस शशमतश लनछयव दकवश उनकक हक व नहससव पर बततर हहई ववररस हह । चनई कक ममतयत कक समय लनछयव कक शवदश हह गई थश और उनकक सगक भवई भगन जजनदव थक।

3. चनई कक ववररस चततरश हह ।

4. पकह कव अनश कयव हह ।"

11. Consolidation Officer while deciding the dispute under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of the issues framed as quoted above has held that respondent No.2-Smt. Lachia will not entitled to be recorded in place of Chanai as after marriage the claim of respondent No.2-Smt. Lachia cannot be accepted. The order of Consolidation Officer was maintained in appeal. Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision filed by respondent No.2-Smt. Lachia has held that in presence of respondent No.2, who is daughter of deceased tenure holder Chanai, the claim of petitioner/Chaturi son of Bhaggan cannot be accepted. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also followed the procedure which has not been prescribed for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act by sending his representative in the village in order to enquire as to whether respondent No.2-Lachia is legal heir of deceased-Chanai. The procedure adopted by Deputy Director of Consolidation by sending the representative in the village cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is correct that Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken into consideration the other aspect of the matter including the evidence adduced before the Consolidation Officer, but there is no proper consideration as to whether the respondent No.2-Lachia was unmarried at the time of death of the deceased Chanai or the marriage of respondent No.2-Smt. Lachia has taken placed in the life time of his father Chanai.

12. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, a fresh consideration is required by Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 Explnation-3 of U.P.C.H. Act.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 13.08.2008 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Director of Consolidation Gorakhpur is liable to be set aside the same and is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed in part and matter is remitted before respondent No.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur to restore the revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act on its original number and decide the same afresh in the light of the observation made in the copy of the judgment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order

14. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 PS* PRITI SHARMA PRITI SHARMA PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad